World Equity Markets and COVID-19: Immediate Response and Recovery Prospects - Munich Personal ...

Page created by Antonio Mckinney
 
CONTINUE READING
Munich Personal RePEc Archive

World Equity Markets and COVID-19:
Immediate Response and Recovery
Prospects

Seven, Unal and Yilmaz, Fatih

Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, King Abdullah Petroleum
Studies and Research Center

8 June 2020

Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/100987/
MPRA Paper No. 100987, posted 15 Jun 2020 04:24 UTC
World Equity Markets and COVID-19: Immediate
                Response and Recovery Prospects∗†

                     Ünal Seven                                  Fatih Yılmaz
                    Central Bank of                     King Abdullah Petroleum Studies
                the Republic of Turkey                        and Research Center

                                                   June 8, 2020

                                                      Abstract
      The actual macroeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic will be realized over time;
      however, its impact on financial markets was much faster and dramatic. Following the spread
      of the pandemic, most global equity markets experienced significant falls and started to re-
      bound with the announcement of economic rescue packages. However, the equity markets’
      responses to the packages have varied across countries. In this paper, we first look at what
      may explain the differences in the equity market falls across-countries. Secondly, we study the
      systematic relation between the size and the type of rescue packages, the severity of the out-
      break and the recovery performance of equity markets. Using cross-country OLS regressions,
      we find that investors’ immediate reaction to equity markets in countries with higher pan-
      demic related deaths is more negative. Moreover, our results show that not all types of rescue
      packages are effective in restoring investors’ valuation of equity markets. Among different
      types, fiscal stimulus support seems to be a stronger predictor of equity market recovery per-
      formance. We also find that the severity of the outbreak in each country affected the equity
      markets’ reactions.

      Keywords: COVID-19, Stock Markets, Stimulus Packages, Recovery

      JEL Classifications: G15, G18

   ∗ The views in this paper are solely the responsibilities of the authors and should not be interpreted as reflecting

the view of their affiliated institutions.
   † E-mail addresses: unal.seven@tcmb.gov.tr, fatih.yilmaz@kapsarc.org.
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

1 Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic, initially broke out in China in early January, has since posed a severe
threat to our lives and economies. Millions of infections and hundreds of thousands of deaths
have been recorded globally, with more casualties expected in the coming days and months. In
response, many countries have had to halt daily life and suspend all but essential international
travel. The measures1 taken to limit the spread of COVID-19 have hit all economies. While
the actual macroeconomic impacts of the pandemic will be realized over time, its impact on
financial markets was much faster and dramatic.2 Most major global equity markets experienced
significant falls up to 50%. Recognizing the short and long-run economic impacts of COVID-19,
many governments announced multi-trillion US Dollars economic rescue packages since mid-
March. Following this positive signal, global equity markets started to rebound with gradual
recovery and declining volatility. With this background, using benchmark equity market indices,
we raise two important questions in this paper. Firstly, we ask what may explain the differences
in equity market falls across-countries? And secondly, is there a systematic relation between the
size and type of rescue packages, the pandemic related death rate and the recovery performance
of equity markets? The first question lays down the main factors behind the investors’ immediate
reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic, while the second one will inform us more about the future
prospects.

     In our analysis, we use equity market benchmark indices from 78 countries and google
search data. We first identify the key dates for the impact of the pandemic on world equity
markets by using the announcement of economic rescue packages and google search data on the
coronavirus. Most world equity markets seem to have reached to their peaks around February
19 that corresponds to the early days of the pandemic spreading to Italy. Similarly, most equity
market indices have reached to their dips around March 23, when many developed economies
including US and European countries started to declare rescue packages. Using these dates,
we compute loss rate, the percentage difference between the peak and dip performances of the
benchmark indices, and the recovery rate, percentage of loss that has been recovered until the
end of April. We then conduct a cross-country empirical analysis on explaining the differences
in the loss and recovery rates based on country level macroeconomic variables, including recent
COVID-19 bail outs.

     With regard the first question, we find that investors’ immediate reaction to equity markets
in countries with higher pandemic related deaths appears to be more negative. This is actually
in line with our prior expectations. In the early days of the pandemic, uncertainty was unprece-
dented, while the pandemic related cases and deaths seemed to be the only and timely available
information. Our results also show close and statistically significant correlation between the
market loss rate and median age of the domestic population, indicating that countries with older
   1 Hale et al. (2020) introduced a stringency index to combine measures and describe variation in government
responses in various areas.
    2 Zhang et al. (2020) showed that risks associated to the pandemic caused to higher volatility in global financial

markets.

                                                          1
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

populations experienced higher losses in the equity markets. With regard to the second question,
we find that not all type of rescue packages are effective in restoring investors valuation of equity
markets. In particular, fiscal stimulus policies among others (e.g., easing financial market regula-
tions, rate cuts, etc.,) seem to be strongly correlated with higher recovery in the equity markets.
Since the pandemic related risks increased the volatility in global financial markets (Zhang et
al., 2020) one would expect to see a negative impact of the pandemic related death rate on the
equity market recovery. Therefore, we also control for the COVID-19 related death rate in the
regressions. As expected, we observe a negative significant relationship between the death rate
and recovery rate. Due to general expectations of slow recovery in tourism sector (i.e., due to
global lockdown) and commodity markets (i.e., especially oil and gas markets due to drop in
production and consumption), and also, disruption on global value chains, we include tourism
revenues, natural resources richness and export revenues of countries to the main model.3 While
the initial findings preserved, we also show that higher tourism revenues or resource richness is
associated with slower recovery in global equity markets. However, we do not find any statis-
tically significant relation between export revenues of a country and itsequityk market recovery
performance in the short time period analyzed in our study.

     Our results are consistent with the newly emerging literature. For example, Zhang et al.
(2020) provided a statistical analysis of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on equity market
risks. They found that financial market risks have increased in response to the pandemic, and
the severity of the outbreak in each country affected the equity markets’ reactions. Similarly,
Zaremba et al. (2020) studied whether government interventions against the spread of pandemic
affect equity market volatility by using data of 67 countries. Using daily equity market data for
the period from 1 January 2020 to 3 April 2020 and simple panel data regressions, they showed
that government responses increase the volatility in international equity markets. They, how-
ever, did not look at the relationship between government responses and equity market returns.
Moreover, using data on the stocks of Hang Seng Index and Shanghai Stock Exchange Compos-
ite Index (SSE), Al-Awadhi et al. (2020) found a negative significant correlation between equity
returns, the daily growth in total confirmed cases and the daily growth in total pandemic related
deaths. Although their work focused on the equity market return-pandemic case relationship,
their results come from a single country sample, unlike ours. Therefore, our study can fill these
gaps by providing a cross-country evidence on both the loss rate and the recovery rate. However,
we should note that our results do not suggest any causality. We are very well aware of the
fact that our regression results may suffer from endogeneity and omitted variable bias problems,
for instance, the type of rescue plan and the equity market response are likely co-determined
by an omitted variable. Despite these limitations, our study provides suggestive evidence from

   3 Tourism  is perhaps the most affected sector due to lockdowns and halting of international travel. According
to the OECD (2020), the pandemic related shocks could decrease the international tourism economy by 45-70% in
2020. Similarly, commodity markets lost significant value with very volatile prices which creates concerns on the
future of resource rich economies, and commodity-dependent emerging and developing economies are among the
most vulnerable economies to COVID-19 since their exports and fiscal revenues are substantially declining (UN, 2020;
World Bank, 2020). Lastly, disruption on domestic and global trade network is another widely discussed impact of
the pandemic (see WTO, 2020, for the export prohibitions and restrictions).

                                                         2
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

strong correlations without claiming any causal inference and contributes to the discussions on
understanding the immediate impact of the pandemic on financial markets and how the policy
responses may restore investors’ confidence on markets.

     The next section presents the details of our data and also, discusses the economic timeline
of the pandemic. Section 3 presents our econometric results. Finally, Secion 4 concludes.

2 Data
Our main data, benchmark equity market indices of 78 countries, is collected from Bloomberg.4
The data is daily and covers the period of January 1 - April 25, 2020. It contains all the major
economies from all the regions of the world. Using this data and Google search data, we identify
the reference dates for when most of the markets have peaked and then, recorded dips. We use
the peaks and dips to measure the impact of the COVID-19 on equity markets (i.e., loss rate) and
how much of this loss recovered (i.e., recovery rate). We explain each concept step-by-step below.

How did COVID-19 Spread Over the World Stock Markets?

Figure 1 presents the market indices, which we normalized to be between zero and one.5 In
Figure 1a, we present a selection of countries from different continents to show the spread of
COVID-19 globally. Three key dates – January 13, February 19 and March 23 – flash out from the
figure. The first date shows the date that China’s SSE peaked. The second date shows the peak
for most of the countries in the rest of the world, and finally, the third date is the beginning of
recovery process. We show the performance of all the equity market benchmark indices in our
full sample during these dates in Figure 1b. The general tendency appears to be preserved in the
full sample.

     In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus was primarily on China and the
expectations of potentially mild effects of the virus on its economy. However, with the the spread
of the virus to Europe in mid-February, it started to become a global phenomenon, as the focus
turned to the potential for it to precipitate a significant global economic slump. In Figures 2a
and 2b, we show the number of countries peaked in January and February, and recorded dips
in March. According to the first figure, some moderate number of countries, including Asian
countries surrounding China and major oil exporters, reached to their peaks around the same
time with China, while many more countries in the rest of the world peaked around February
19. Finally, most countries (63 % of our sample) reached to their dips between March 18 and 23.

     The timeline implied by the performance of world equity markets seem to be closely inline
with Google search statistics for the keyword “coronavirus” in the world and in major countries.
    4 Very small islands, countries without a equity market or a benchmark index, equity markets that were closed

during the pandemic period or related data not provided by Bloomberg are excluded from the study. We also could
not include some countries due to availability on other variables used in the analysis. Due to these data limitations,
we are left with 78 countries. A full list of countries, covered in our study, can be found in Table A.1 in the Appendix.
    5 The normalization is done by [x-min(x)]/[min(x)-max(x)], where x is index value.

                                                           3
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

                                                                 Figure 1: Stock Exchange Performances (Normalized)
                                    a) Major Stock Exchange Indices                                                                                  b) All Stock Exchange Indices
1

                                                                                                                     1
                                                                                                                                                                                             March 23
.8

                                                                                         March 23

                                                                                                                     .8
.6

                                                                                                                     .6
                                January 13
.4

                                                           February 19

                                                                                                                     .4
.2

                                                                                                                                               January 13               February 19
0

                                                                                                                     .2
       01jan2020 15jan2020 29jan2020 12feb2020 26feb2020 11mar2020 25mar2020 08apr2020 22apr2020

                                Mean (Sample)      China                 United States              United Kingdom
                                Germany            Italy                 Japan                      Australia
                                                                                                                     0
                                Brazil             India
                                                                                                                             01jan2020 15jan2020 29jan2020 12feb2020 26feb2020 11mar2020 25mar2020 08apr2020 22apr2020

                      Source: Bloomberg.
                      Note: All indexes are normalized to [0,1] interval.

                                                                  Figure 2: Identifying Stock Markets’ Peaks and Dips
                              a) Number of Country Peaks Over Time                                                                           b) Number of Country Dips Over Time
          14

                                                                                                                             25
          12

                                                                                                                             20
                     10

                                                                                                                     # of Dipping Country
# of Peaking Country

                                                                                                                                   15
      6       8

                                                                                                                         10
          4

                                                                                                                             5
          2
          0

                                                                                                                             0

                          15jan2020 22jan2020 29jan2020 05feb2020 12feb2020 19feb2020 26feb2020                                             04mar2020       11mar2020         18mar2020     25mar2020         01apr2020

                      Source: Authors’ calculations from the Bloomberg data.

                      In Figure 3, we show Google search statistics for the World and China (i.e., the origin of the
                      pandemic), Italy (i.e., the first infected in Europe), and finally, the United States (i.e., a major
                      economy). It is interesting to see that in the early day of the pandemic, there was little interest
                      on the issue in the world, perhaps due to the assumption that the pandemic would be preserved
                      locally. However, the interest on the pandemic quickly picked up around the same time that

                                                                                                                            4
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

the virus spread to Italy and then, the world equity markets immediately responded. As we
reached to mid-March, the interest started to declining. To fight the negative economic impact
of COVID-19, many governments started to announce unprecedented economic rescue packages
since mid-March.6 Some of the most significant ones include a 2 trillion stimulus package in the
United States (U.S.) (10% of its GDP) and a 0.8 trillion package in Germany (20.5 % of its GDP).
The giant rescue packages appear to restore investor confidence, given that the markets started
pick up since March 23. With this background, we treat February 17–21, as the global peak, and
March 18-23, as the global dip, and use these dates to compute equity market loss and recovery
rates for all the countries in our sample.

                                                 Figure 3: Google Search on Coronavirus
                          100

                                                                                                       March 18-23

                                                              February 17-21
                          80

                                    January 13
                          60
                          40
                          20
                          0

                           01jan2020              22jan2020    12feb2020           04mar2020     25mar2020           15apr2020

                                                                  World                China
                                                                  Italy                United States

Source: Google search statistics.

Measuring the Stock Market Loss due to COVID-19

In computing the loss rate, we take the maximum index value in the global peak days to deter-
mine each market’s peak and similarly, take the minimum index value in the global dip days to
determine each market’s dip. Using the percentage difference between dip and peak values, we
measure the loss rate for each country as the immediate impact of the the COVID-19 on their
equity markets. Figure 4 displays the computed loss rate for each country in our sample. The
figure shows that the pandemic crashed world equity markets up to 50% in some countries. Aus-
trian ATX Prime index dropped for 48%, Italian MIB index declined for 41%, German DAX index
fell for 39%, US Dow Jones dropped for 37%, and the UK FTSE100 index was down for 33%.

    6 Most of these packages were first communicated with the public usually a few days before the actual legal process

in respective parliaments and congresses. For instance, the initial Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
in the United States was designed to be 1.4 trillion USD, which did not pass the Senate in March 23. The revised bill
with 2 trillion USD passed in March 25. However, global markets were already informed about the bailout on March
24. For the full story, see the Washington Post article.

                                                                               5
World Equity Markets and COVID-19
                                     Figure 4: Loss Rate Between the Peak and Dip
        0
        -10
   Loss Rate (%)
    -30 -40
        -50 -20

                                   Ghana
                               Mongolia
                        Slovak Republic
                             Kazakhstan
                                    China
                                     Laos
                                    Qatar
                                  Tunisia
                            Montenegro
                                   Oman
                              Cambodia
                                   Latvia
                                 Bahrain
                                Malaysia
                                    Malta
                                  Nigeria
                               Lithuania
                             Hong Kong
                                   Kenya
                                  Iceland
                                 Jamaica
                           Saudi Arabia
                                   Serbia
                                Denmark
                                 Mexico
                            Switzerland
                                Bulgaria
                                  Estonia
                                Morocco
                                  Kuwait
                                      Peru
                                Pakistan
                           New Zealand
                                    Japan
                                Vietnam
                       North Macedonia
                                  Turkey
                                Slovenia
                              Singapore
                                  Cyprus
                                Romania
                                 Sweden
                                    Israel
                                  Poland
                                  Croatia
                        United Kingdom
                   United Arab Emirates
                                 Norway
                               Indonesia
                                Portugal
                                Thailand
                            South Korea
                            Netherlands
                                 Finland
                                Hungary
                                Australia
                                    Egypt
                           United States
                                     India
                                  Canada
                         Czech Republic
                             Philippines
                                    Chile
                                    Spain
                                   France
                                Belgium
                                Germany
                                  Ireland
                                      Italy
                                Namibia
                           Luxembourg
                              Argentina
                           South Africa
                                    Brazil
                                   Russia
                              Colombia
                                  Greece
                                  Austria
Source: Authors’ calculations from the Bloomberg data.
Note: Loss rate is computed as the percentage change between dip and peak values of each index.
Measuring the Stock Market Recovery Rate
We measure the recovery rate for a equity market benchmark index (index) as the ratio of the
recovered amount (from its dip to April 24, the last data in our sample) to the loss amount,
between the peak and dip dates.
                                                                   index(last) − index(dip)
                                           recovery rate =                                                 (1)
                                                                  index(dip) − index( peak)
For convenience, we multiple the denominator with negative one to make the loss rate positive
for every index.7 Hence, the recovery becomes positive, when there is actually a positive recov-
ery; zero, if no recovery observed, and negative, if further losses accrued. Despite the growing
concerns of a potential second wave of the pandemic, following the stimulus policies, equity
markets have made significant recoveries since their dips. As of the last day in our sample, the
US Dow Jones had recovered 48% of the losses it sustained between February 19 and March 23.
   7 All the equity market indices in our sample recorded losses during this time and thus, shows with positive
numbers.
                                                                      6
World Equity Markets and COVID-19
During the same period, the German DAX index recovered 35%, and the UK FTSE 100 regained
31% of its losses.
                                          Figure 5: Recovery Rate from the Dip
           75
           50        25
     Recovery Rate (%)
   -50 -25 -75
           -1000

                                      Mongolia
                                          Ghana
                                        Bahrain
                                          Oman
                                       Morocco
                                             Peru
                                   Montenegro
                                         Cyprus
                                           Spain
                                        Jamaica
                                        Mexico
                                         Nigeria
                                             Italy
                                           Qatar
                                            Laos
                                  Luxembourg
                               Slovak Republic
                                       Hungary
                                         Kuwait
                                         Tunisia
                                           Brazil
                                       Belgium
                                       Australia
                                           Egypt
                                          France
                                         Greece
                                       Bulgaria
                                       Romania
                                      Indonesia
                                       Portugal
                                     Singapore
                                     Colombia
                                         Estonia
                                  South Africa
                                       Slovenia
                                         Austria
                                          Kenya
                                         Croatia
                                         Poland
                                    Philippines
                                  Saudi Arabia
                               United Kingdom
                                           Malta
                                         Ireland
                                          Serbia
                                    Hong Kong
                                        Finland
                                            India
                                           Israel
                                          Russia
                                        Norway
                                       Pakistan
                                       Germany
                                        Sweden
                                           Japan
                                Czech Republic
                                           China
                              North Macedonia
                          United Arab Emirates
                                         Turkey
                                       Namibia
                                     Cambodia
                                     Argentina
                                       Vietnam
                                         Iceland
                                   Netherlands
                                           Chile
                                       Thailand
                                   Switzerland
                                       Malaysia
                                         Canada
                                  United States
                                  New Zealand
                                   South Korea
                                    Kazakhstan
                                      Lithuania
                                       Denmark
                                          Latvia
Source: Authors’ calculations from the Bloomberg data.
Note: Recovery rate is computed as the ratio of the recovered amount from the dip of each index to its value on April 24 to the loss amount
between the peak and dip dates.
COVID-19 Rescue Measures and Other Variables
Using the IMF COVID-19 Policy Tracker data8 , Elgin et al. (2020) created a COVID-19 Economic
Stimulus Index (CESI) that we use to measure the size of rescue packages in the analysis. The res-
cue packages contain various types of supports for households, firms, and the financial industry.
Fiscal supports usually occupy the biggest portion in packages, which include direct cash trans-
fers (e.g., enhanced employment benefits, improved food safety, etc.), tax rebates (to individuals
and firms), credit guarantees (i.e., preventing firm bankruptcies), forgiving loans (i.e., usually
for small and medium size enterprises). Monetary and macro-financial supports usually include
easing market liquidity with policy rate cuts and relaxing regulations and supervision controls,
as well as asset purchase programs by the central banks. We use both the composite index and
   8 The IMF produces an up-to-date policy tracker database that summarizes government responses against the
human and economic impact of the pandemic for 193 economies, see the IMF Policy Tracker Database.
                                                                    7
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

its components in our analysis. The summary statistics for all the variables used in our analysis
are presented in Table 1 and their cross-correlations are shown in the Appendix, Table A.2.

                                                     Table 1: Summary Statistics
 The table presents the summary statistics for all the variables used in the analysis. Loss rate is computed as the percentage change between
 dip and peak values of each index while recovery rate is computed as the ratio of the recovered amount from the dip of each index to
 its value on April 24 to the loss amount between the peak and dip dates. Median age is the median age of the population for the year
 2019. Hospital beds is the number of hospital beds per 1000 people. The CESI index is a composite index for measuring the combined
 impact of all adopted policies against the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic measures as defined by Elgin et al. (2020), and
 it is normalized to [0, 1] interval. Fiscal stands for the fiscal policy package as a percent of GDP, Rate Cut is the interest rate cut as a
 percent of the pre-crisis level, Macro-Financial is the monetary stimulus package as a percent of GDP, BoP is the monetary intervention to
 control the balance of payments and the exchange rate as a percent of GDP and finally, Other BoP is a dummy variable taking the value
 of 1 if there are other accompanying measures towards stabilizing BoP and exchange rate a lâ Elgin et al. (2020). Resource rich takes
 value of 1 for resource rich countries, zero otherwise. Tourism revenue represents the international tourism receipts as a percentage of GDP
 while total exports variable is defined as the ratio of total exports of goods and services to GDP. Finally, population is the total number of people.

 Variable                                                         Obs        Mean              Std. Dev.              Min              Max
 Loss Rate (%)                                                    78          29.95              10.02                2.23             48.05
 Recovery Rate (%)                                                78          28.46              23.35               -99.07            72.18
 Median Age                                                       78          36.54               7.40                 18                48
 Death Rate (per 1,000,000 people)                                78           3.16              12.61                  0             100.56
 GDP per capita (000 USD)                                         78          26.16              23.89                1.20            110.74
 Hospital Beds (per 1,000 people)                                 78          3.81                2.49                0.50             13.40
 CESI Index                                                       78           0.37               0.27                  0                1
 Fiscal (% of GDP)                                                78           6.01               5.34                  -5             22.14
 Rate Cut (%)                                                     78          22.42              32.16              -105.56             100
 Reserve Requirement and Buffer (%)                               78          25.05              34.76                -8.33             100
 Macro-Financial (% of GDP)                                       78           5.07               6.38                  0                28
 BoP (% of GDP)                                                   78           0.26               0.98                  0               6.50
 Other BoP                                                        78           0.26               0.44                  0                1
 Resource Rich Dummy                                              78          0.22                0.42                  0                1
 Tourism Revenue (% of GDP)                                       78           4.93               4.89                0.27             22.89
 Total Exports (% of GDP)                                         78          52.57              39.02                8.24            223.08
 Population                                                       78        76300000           221000000            353574          1390000000

3 Empirical Analysis
In this section, we present two sets of results. The first set shows our findings on what may
explain the cross-country differences in their loss rates and the second set displays our results on
explaining the cross-country differences in their recovery rates.

3.1     What Explains the Cross Country Differences in Loss Rates?

We first provide scatter plots for certain country characteristics and the loss rate. Panel (a) of
the Figure 6 shows the cross country relationship between the total number of COVID-19 related
deaths (up to March 24, 2020)9 and the loss rate. Strong positive relationship between the two

      9 We
         take the total number of pandemic related deaths up to March 24, 2020 since we consider the period of March
18-23 as the global dip for equity markets.

                                                                           8
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

            variables is evident. We observe a similar relationship between GDP per capita and the loss rate,
            which could be somehow surprising. However, we should note that most advanced economies
            implemented more strict policies (e.g., social distancing, shutdowns, etc.) to prevent the spread
            of the pandemic. This could explain the strong positive correlation between the two variables
            such that tighter measures may imply weakening of firms’ future profits from the perspective of
            investors.

                                                Figure 6: Loss Rate, Number of Deaths and GDP per capita
                       a) Loss Rate and Number of Deaths                                          b) Loss Rate and GDP per capita
     50

                                                                                   50
     40

                                                                                   40
Loss Rate (%)

                                                                              Loss Rate (%)
          30

                                                                                        30
 20

                                                                               20
     10

                                                                                   10
     0

                                                                                   0

                0               2              4               6        8                     7      8          9              10              11   12
                                        Log (Number of Deaths)                                                 Log (GDP per capita)

                                    Loss Rate           Fitted values                                    Loss Rate             Fitted values

            Note: Number of deaths represents the total number of COVID-19 related deaths till March 24, 2020. Loss rate is computed as the percentage
            change between dip and peak values of each index.

                      We then conduct simple cross country OLS regressions with the loss rate as our dependent
            variable. We control for the main factors that could explain the cross country differences in
            loss rates, including, median age of the population, death rate (per a million population), GDP
            per capita and number of hospital beds.10 In doing so, we aim to control for the pandemic,
            demographic, income and health system related differences across countries.

                      Table 2 presents the regression results by adding one variable to the baseline model in each
            column. The results show statistically significant and positive correlation between the loss rate
            and median age of population, pandemic related death rate, and the GDP per capita. Median
            age only becomes statistically insignificant in the last column with almost no change on sign
            and magnitude. Pandemic related death rate also remains to be statistically significant across
            the table. Hospital beds (per 1,000 people), as a proxy for the health system capacity to fight
            the pandemic, is not statistically significant. However, its sign is expectedly negative, implying
            a negative relation with the loss rate. These results imply that countries with relatively older
            populations and higher pandemic related death rates experienced a larger immediate drop in
            the equity markets following the spread of the virus to Europe. The results should not come at a
                    10 Given   the degrees of freedom concerns with such a small sample, we only included the main variables.

                                                                                  9
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

big surprise, as there was huge uncertainty in the early days of the pandemic and investors did
not have much other information to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on markets. As pointed
out earlier, observing a higher loss in richer countries may be due to the fact that richer countries
took faster action in halting the daily life.
                             Table 2: Cross-Country Regression on the Loss Rate
           The table presents the cross-country OLS results for the regression between the loss rate and certain country
           characteristics. The dependent variable, loss rate, is computed as the percentage change between dip and peak values
           of each equity market index. Median age represents the median age of the population in 2019. Death rate is the ratio
           (per 1 million people) of total number of COVID-19 related deaths till March 24 to population. Hospital beds is the
           total number of hospital beds per 1,000 people. Robust (clustered) standard errors in parentheses. The clustering is
           done at the World Bank eight region level. *** p
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

                                                                Figure 7: Recovery Rate and Stimulus Packages
                                a) Recovery Rate and CESI Index                                                               b) Recovery Rate and Fiscal Package
        100

                                                                                                          100
                  50

                                                                                                                    50
Recovery Rate (%)

                                                                                                  Recovery Rate (%)
       0

                                                                                                         0
        -50

                                                                                                          -50
        -100

                                                                                                          -100
                       0            .2            .4                .6                   .8   1                          -5       0          5             10            15     20
                                                       CESI Index                                                                          Fiscal Package (% of GDP)

                                         Recovery Rate                   Fitted values                                                Recovery Rate             Fitted values

                   Notes: The CESI index is normalized to [0,1] interval. Recovery rate is computed as the ratio of the recovered amount from the dip of each index
                   to its value on April 24 to the loss amount between the peak and dip dates.

                   include controls like resource richness dummy, tourism and total export revenues as a percentage
                   of GDP. The results show that there is a positive but statistically insignificant relationship between
                   recovery rate and the CESI index (column 1 of Table 3), and this result does not change when
                   we control for country specific variables (columns 2 and 3 of Table 3). In columns 4, 5 and 6, we
                   replace the main index with its sub-components. Among the six sub-components of CESI index,
                   the fiscal, reserve requirement and buffer packages are positively and statistically significantly
                   correlated with recovery rate. The fiscal stimulus packages seem to be more strongly correlated
                   with the recovery rate than other sub-components. However, we do not observe any significant
                   relationship between rate cut and recovery rate while also macro-financial policy package and
                   other BoP variable have insignificant relationships with recovery rate.

                             Besides the main results, we also find a negative significant relationship between the COVID-
                   19 related death rate and recovery rate, suggesting that countries with high pandemic related
                   death rate tend to experience lower recovery rate in the equity market. We also observe statisti-
                   cally significant relation between the recovery rates and countries resource richness, and tourism
                   revenues. This is to say concerns on energy demand and swinging oil and gas prices had a severe
                   impact on the equity market performances of resource rich economies.11 Similarly, halting daily
                   life and imposing restrictions on international activity also negatively affected the economies that
                   rely more on tourism revenues. These general concerns seem to be reflected on the equity market
                   performances according to our results. Amid the discussion on a potential shrink of world trade,
                   export variable does not seem to be statistically significantly related to recovery rate.

                           11 For
                            a more detailed discussion on COVID-19 impact on oil and gas exporting economies and different type of
                   green versus traditional assets, see Yilmaz (2020).

                                                                                                     11
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

                              Table 3: Cross-Country Regressions on the Recovery Rate
The table presents the cross-country OLS results for the regression between the recovery rate, the pandemic related death rate, economic stimulus
packages and certain country characteristics. The dependent variable, recovery rate, is computed as the ratio of the recovered amount from the dip
of each equity market index to its value on April 24 to the loss amount between the peak and dip dates. The CESI index is a composite index for
measuring the combined impact of all adopted policies against the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic measures as defined by Elgin et
al. (2020), and it is normalized to [0, 1] interval. Fiscal stands for the fiscal policy package as a percent of GDP, Rate Cut is the interest rate cut
as a percent of the pre-crisis level, Macro-Financial is the monetary stimulus package as a percent of GDP, BoP is the monetary intervention to
control the balance of payments and the exchange rate as a percent of GDP and finally, Other BoP is a dummy variable taking the value of 1 if
there are other accompanying measures towards stabilizing BoP and exchange rate a lâ Elgin et al. (2020). Death rate is the ratio (per 1 million
people) of total number of COVID-19 related deaths till March 24 to population. Resource Rich takes value of 1 for resource rich countries, zero
otherwise. Tourism revenue represents the international tourism receipts as a percentage of GDP while total exports variable is defined as the
ratio of total exports of goods and services to GDP. Robust (clustered) standard errors in parentheses. The clustering is done at the World Bank
eight region level. *** p
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

to restore expectations. In particular, countries with larger fiscal rescue packages seem to have
experienced a higher recovery. Our findings show that there is a significant negative relation-
ship between the COVID-19 related death rate and recovery rate, suggesting that the severity of
the pandemic in each economy affects the equity market’s reaction. We also show that countries
with high dependence on natural resources and tourism revenues appear to experience a slowing
down in their recovery rates.

    We should note that our study provides suggestive evidence from strong correlations with-
out claiming any causal inference, as it may have limitations, such as omitted variable bias. How-
ever, the presented results contribute to the discussions on understanding the immediate impact
of the pandemic on financial markets and how the policy responses may restore investors’ confi-
dence on markets. This may also provide some inference for the prospective recovery of financial
markets from the COVID-19 pandemic. Another limitation of our study can be the narrow re-
search sample, which is mostly due to the data availability. We will be able to update and verify
our findings as richer data sets become available.

References
 [1] Adam, Zaremba , Renatas, Kizys , David Y., Aharon , Ender, Demir. 2020. “Infected Mar-
    kets: Novel Coronavirus, Government Interventions, and Stock Return Volatility around the
    Globe’.” Finance Research Letters. (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101597)

 [2] Al-Awadhi, Abdullah M., Alsaifi, Khaled, Al-Awadhi, Ahmad, Alhammadi, Salah . 2020.
    “Death and Contagious Infectious Diseases: Impact of the COVID-19 Virus on Stock Market
    Returns.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27. 100326.

 [3] Baldwin, Richard, Beatrice Weder di Mauro. 2020. “Mitigating the COVID Economic Crisis:
    Act Fast and Do Whatever It takes.” VoxEU.org eBook, CEPR Press.

 [4] Elgin, Ceyhun, Basbug, Gokce, Yalaman, Abdullah. 2020. "Economic Policy Responses to a
    Pandemic: Developing the COVID-19 Economic Stimulus Index" COVID Economics: Vetted
    and Real Time Papers 3: 40-54.

 [5] Gourinchas, Pierre-Olivier. 2020. "Flattening the Pandemic and Recession Curves." in Miti-
    gating the COVID Economic Crisis: Act Fast and Do Whatever. Edited By Richard Baldwin
    and Beatrice Weder di Mauro. London: CEPR Press.

 [6] Hale, Thomas, Noam Angrist, Beatriz Kira, Anna Petherick, Toby Phillips, Samuel Webster.
    2020. “Variation in Government Responses to COVID-19.” Version 5.0. Blavatnik School of
    Government Working Paper.

 [7] Kinda, T., Mlachila, M., and Ouedraogo, R. 2018. “Do Commodity Price Shocks Weaken the
    Financial Sector?” The World Economy, 41(11), 3001-3044.

                                               13
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

 [8] OECD. 2020. “Tackling Coronavirus (COVID-19): Tourism Policy Responses.” Technical Re-
    port.

 [9] Tokhir N Mirzoev, Ling Zhu, Yang Yang, Tian Zhang, Erik Roos, Andrea Pescatori and
    Akito Matsumoto. 2020. "The Future of Oil and Fiscal Sustainability in the GCC Region."
    IMF Departmental Papers/Policy Papers 20/01.

[10] United Nations. 2020. “Commodity Exporters Face Mounting Economic Challenges as Pan-
    demic Spreads”. Policy Brief No:60.

[11] World Bank. 2020. "Commodity Market Outlook: Implication of COVID-19 for Commodi-
    ties". Technical Report.

[12] WTO. 2020. “Export Prohibitions and Restrictions.” Information Note.

[13] Yilmaz, F. 2020 “Long and Short-Term Economic Impact of COVID-19: Does the Future
    Look Greener?” KAPSARC Instant Insight, forthcoming .

[14] Zhang, Dayong, Min Hu, and Qiang Ji. 2020. "Financial Markets Under the Global Pandemic
    of COVID-19." Finance Research Letters, 101528

                                              14
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

Appendix
                       Table A.1: List of Countries Included in the Study

Country          Region                         Country                Region
Argentina        Latin America and Caribbean    Luxembourg             Europe and Central Asia
Australia        East Asia and Pacific          Malaysia               East Asia and Pacific
Austria          Europe and Central Asia        Malta                  Middle East and North Africa
Bahrain          Middle East and North Africa   Mexico                 Latin America and Caribbean
Belgium          Europe and Central Asia        Mongolia               East Asia and Pacific
Brazil           Latin America and Caribbean    Montenegro             Europe and Central Asia
Bulgaria         Europe and Central Asia        Morocco                Middle East and North Africa
Cambodia         East Asia and Pacific          Namibia                Sub-Saharan Africa
Canada           North America                  Netherlands            Europe and Central Asia
Chile            Latin America and Caribbean    New Zealand            East Asia and Pacific
China            East Asia and Pacific          Nigeria                Sub-Saharan Africa
Colombia         Latin America and Caribbean    North Macedonia        Europe and Central Asia
Croatia          Europe and Central Asia        Norway                 Europe and Central Asia
Cyprus           Europe and Central Asia        Oman                   Middle East and North Africa
Czech Republic   Europe and Central Asia        Pakistan               South Asia
Denmark          Europe and Central Asia        Peru                   Latin America and Caribbean
Egypt            Middle East and North Africa   Philippines            East Asia and Pacific
Estonia          Europe and Central Asia        Poland                 Europe and Central Asia
Finland          Europe and Central Asia        Portugal               Europe and Central Asia
France           Europe and Central Asia        Qatar                  Middle East and North Africa
Germany          Europe and Central Asia        Romania                Europe and Central Asia
Ghana            Sub-Saharan Africa             Russia                 Europe and Central Asia
Greece           Europe and Central Asia        Saudi Arabia           Middle East and North Africa
Hong Kong        East Asia and Pacific          Serbia                 Europe and Central Asia
Hungary          Europe and Central Asia        Singapore              East Asia and Pacific
Iceland          Europe and Central Asia        Slovak Republic        Europe and Central Asia
India            South Asia                     Slovenia               Europe and Central Asia
Indonesia        East Asia and Pacific          South Africa           Sub-Saharan Africa
Ireland          Europe and Central Asia        South Korea            East Asia and Pacific
Israel           Middle East and North Africa   Spain                  Europe and Central Asia
Italy            Europe and Central Asia        Sweden                 Europe and Central Asia
Jamaica          Latin America and Caribbean    Switzerland            Europe and Central Asia
Japan            East Asia and Pacific          Thailand               East Asia and Pacific
Kazakhstan       Europe and Central Asia        Tunisia                Middle East and North Africa
Kenya            Sub-Saharan Africa             Turkey                 Europe and Central Asia
Kuwait           Middle East and North Africa   United Arab Emirates   Middle East and North Africa
Laos             South East Asia                United Kingdom         Europe and Central Asia
Latvia           Europe and Central Asia        United States          North America
Lithuania        Europe and Central Asia        Vietnam                East Asia and Pacific

                                                15
World Equity Markets and COVID-19

                                                Table A.2: Correlation Coefficients
The table reports the correlation coefficients for the main variables. Loss rate is computed as the percentage change between dip and peak values of
each equity market index. Recovery rate is computed as the ratio of the recovered amount from the dip of each equity market index to its value
on April 24 to the loss amount between the peak and dip dates. The CESI index is a composite index for measuring the combined impact of all
adopted policies against the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic measures as defined by Elgin et al. (2020), and it is normalized to [0, 1]
interval. Death rate is the ratio (per 1 million people) of total number of COVID-19 related deaths till March 24 to population. GDP per capita is
the real GDP per 1,000 people. Hospital beds is the total number of hospital beds per 1,000 people. Tourism revenue represents the international
tourism receipts as a percentage of GDP while total exports variable is defined as the ratio of total exports of goods and services to GDP. * p
You can also read